Leveraging engineering B.E. after pivoting to Physics - impossible?

[Pirx]

Hello, fellow users of the Forum. Excuse my English, as I'm writing in a hurry.

What I'm going to describe here is mostly another case of a (potential) Physics after Engineering Syndrome. I'm aware that this is an neverending topic on the Forum and have read a lot of posts on this subject before writing one myself. I'd be glad to see input from people who became physicists by profession (that is, have physics-related jobs), especially those who remained in academia, but also any other insight will be valuable.

Let's say that the author of this post has a very, very bad case of being in two minds about his studies; and that he is undecided enough that he is willing to return for a second Bachelors in physics after completing his BSc. in Aerospace Eng. (at 23), just to see 1. which career is right 2. if, by any chance, his mental faculties won't restrict him to undergrad physics, which as we know is not the right level to pursue academia (I do not intend to poke at people who are content with just having a BSc. in Physics. This is just what I've observed about natural sciences academia: PhD or nothing).

I am aware that this is a highly inefficient way of doing it. However, I've quietly dreamed of doing physics for a living since early high school. I chose engineering because I thought that I would be happy doing more reality-oriented problem solving. Also job security, the usual spiel. You could write this out, too, most likely. As time went on, I've come to realize that engineering seems very intellectually understimulating (there's a lot of material to learn in AE, but it strikes me as conceptually easy... very easy, even) and has, little to do with bona fide problem solving (instead of reproducing standardized solutions). So this detour would be my last shot at getting the main prize - of being a physicist in a country with very underfunded (thus with few vacancies) science sectors.

Aside for sequentially obtaining a second Bachelors, my only other option would be throwing in the towel after 2/3.5 years in AeE (I am in Europe, no financial loss would occur) and launching myself into Physics at 21. As a side note: doing a Masters in Physics after engineering, especially AE, is impossible in my country and/or would come with such large differences in background that no one would accept me for a PhD. I've researched this thoroughly.

Don't worry, I'm not one of those types who read a single PopSci book in HS and have decided to become a string theorist-astrophysicist-whatever on a whim. You can be brutal with me. I know that the actual 'hot thing' in modern physics is CMP, AMO, etc., that more money lies in experimental and my chances of ending up as a programmer in the business sector would be moderate to high. Which is also why my original idea was to secure myself with an engineering degree. I try to get good grades and be active in extra-curricular clubs (where I seem mostly to be drawn to theoretical work), but the thought of going into physics one day haunts me relentlessly. I'm afraid I would deeply regret not even trying to do pure sciences while I'm still young.

My main question is: if I were to go into Physics after getting an engineering degree beforehand, would I be able to market this to academics (I imagine theoretical physicists would deem this background useless, and I don't blame them but I'm thinking about experimentalists) as a positive thing instead of being held back by the fact that I'm older than my peers (23 starting BSc., then 26 when finishing my Masters, 28 when starting a PhD)? Do institutions in Europe care about starting their career in Physics with such a large postponement? I know ageism is officially illegal but I also know that the world, especially academia, is not a just place, and universities will always choose a younger candidate over an older one with the same credentials - so I'd like to hear just how bad it really is.

I know the usual concerns with staying in school so long. I do not want to start a family and as long as I'm in my country, education is free. So my only worry, really, is jeopardizing my CV as a potential physicist (too old, weird background, undecided), should I like Physics more than AE. This is the reason I'm writing this post.

Thank you for reading this (I imagine very meandering) post and would be grateful to get your insight.

Edit: I'm sorry, something has short-circuited in my brain. After Aerospace you get a BE., obviously.

 

[mad mathematician]

Well if Dirac started in Engineering and then switched to Physics then I guess it's possible.
In the end, you'd be judged by your publish or perish quality work.

 

[Pirx]

Well if Dirac started in Engineering and then switched to Physics then I guess it's possible.
In the end, you'd be judged by your publish or perish quality work.

Thanks, but I'm afraid it's somewhat different when you're at Dirac-level intelligence (and he got his first degree at 19, which is very young). It's still a nice thing to think about, though.
Would you like to elaborate on how important the publish-or-perish thing is in relation to other factors (age, school prestige perhaps) in (physics, I assume) academia?

 

[mad mathematician]

Thanks, but I'm afraid it's somewhat different when you're at Dirac-level intelligence (and he got his first degree at 19, which is very young). It's still a nice thing to think about, though.
Would you like to elaborate on how important the publish-or-perish thing is in relation to other factors (age, school prestige perhaps) in (physics, I assume) academia?

You should ask those prof.s here.
It's all about p.o.p, unless you want to settle in academia for the teaching jobs only.
There are of course those adjunct teachers jobs...

 

[Choppy]

I think you're worrying way too much about age at the moment.
No one cares whether you're 22 or 26 when you start your PhD. If anything, in my experience, a few extra years of maturity can work to your advantage.
Age can start to be an issue once you get into your thirties, mostly for your own sake though. Most people in their thirties are starting to think about settling into long-term relationships (i.e. marriage), children, and other long term obligations (i.e. mortgages), etc. This can be tough to balance with graduate school and post-doctoral work (low wages, long hours, uncertainty of position in the long term). But if you (and any partner/family that are in play) are willing to accept that, then it shouldn't be too much of an obstacle. What matters is how qualified you are when you apply--that you have the necessary background, you've been successful academically, you have some research experience, you've done enough research to know what you're getting into, etc.
The other common point when it comes to your age is that it's not really something you can do much about. If you're 26 and applying for a PhD, it's not like you can turn back the clock and apply at 22 instead. All you can do is move ahead from where you're at.
I can't say whether also having a BEng will be helpful or not. Some may see it as a plus depending on the specific skill set you bring to the table. It's unlikely to be any kind of hinderance though.

 

[Pirx]

I guess it's the idea of being N years ahead or behind people my age that was worrying me. It's helpful to see input from someone who actually went the whole route. Thanks a lot for the insight.

 

[Vanadium 50]

Well if Dirac started in Engineering and then switched to Physics

And he's been dead half a century. Ancient examples are of little help.

 

[marcusl]

I wonder if you just haven't gotten far enough into your studies if you find it simple and obvious. Fluid flow over wings and the Navier-Stokes equations, turbulence, combustion science, avionics and communications, navigation, control theory, and many other fields fall under the aerospace engineering umbrella. Any one of them can lead you into a very deep area of investigation and a lifetime career.

 

[Pirx]

I wonder if you just haven't gotten far enough into your studies if you find it simple and obvious. Fluid flow over wings and the Navier-Stokes equations, turbulence, combustion science, avionics and communications, navigation, control theory, and many other fields fall under the aerospace engineering umbrella. Any one of them can lead you into a very deep area of investigation and a lifetime career.

In hindsight I realize I may have phrased some things in a tone that could possibly sound condescending, which was obviously not my intention - I am aware that AE has some very complicated subfields, and it has its own geniuses just as physics does.
I am beginning my 2nd year, which is said to be the hardest of all. This is also when Aerospace majors in my country are phased into controls, fluid mechanics, finish off their Calculus and structural mechanics and also do a lot of aeronautical (space eng. comes later) stuff.
My problem is that I find the theoretical backdrop to be explained in an extremely hand-wavy, compact way and then your (the Student's) job is to finesse extremely fast but schematic problem-solving. I find it to be a very frustrating, disappointing way of introducing - truth be told - beautiful areas of of physics and mathematics, and can't help but feel that I don't really care about the applications and would be content to focus on the strict formulation and derivation of the theory.
Perhaps things will change later on, but right know this really makes me doubt if I'll be OK with doing the applied part for the rest of my career. I know people say that the job's the conceptually easy part (compared to the crunch) after a rather soul-crushing education but this doesn't cheer me up either.

 

[mad mathematician]

And he's been dead half a century. Ancient examples are of little help.

Yes. I agree.
I still don't understand why did I learn all this Newtonian and Maxwellian physics if it's ancient... and wrong.

 

[mad mathematician]

But I enjoy the math behind the wrong physics... :-D

 

[erobz]

As time went on, I've come to realize that engineering seems very intellectually understimulating (there's a lot of material to learn in AE, but it strikes me as conceptually easy... very easy, even) and has, little to do with bona fide problem solving (instead of reproducing standardized solutions). So this detour would be my last shot at getting the main prize - of being a physicist in a country with very underfunded (thus with few vacancies) science sectors.

Fair assessment. Do you mind trying your hand at a problem. I'd like some info on how to tackle it within the standard framework of fluid mechanics. It seemingly simplistic on its face, and maybe it is.

https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/disc-lifted-by-pressurized-air-in-a-vertical-tube.1066629/